Donations to political parties page 5

It’s not about being defensive here, it’s about this exceptionalism bullshit that keeps coming from people; America and capitalism are somehow the end-all-be-all of society on Earth, therefore questioning either means fuck you, leave. It’s ridiculous, and I’m sick of it.

I’m sorry if it’s hard for you to acknowledge that capitalism helped turn the US into a superpower.

Corruption now allowed on a grand scale by decisions like Citizens United vs FEC.

Except that donations haven’t shown to corrupt. Unless you have the data that Karma was unable to produce to prove his point?

You want reasonable regulation? Take the money out of politics.

That would require eliminating our 1st Amendment which I’d rather not have happen.

Provide candidates the airwaves they need to have their voices heard free of charge, as it was meant to be, instead of forcing a profit from the political process.

I consider a reasonable regulation one that has to be possible. While I mostly agree with this (and people in Washington have tried to push for this), this will never happen.

You want reasonable regulation? Prosecute corporations that act blatantly against the health of society the same way you would a person.

You seem to be referencing the common good, except there is no one definition of the common good, making this especially difficult.

Close every goddamned lobbyist-backed loophole in the tax code and make the corporations that have profited so vastly in America pay their fair fucking share.

And just what is their fair share exactly? It’s such a fun buzzword for the left, yet when asked, they can never come up with a specific ‘fair share’. We could take literally everything from every corporation and every wealthy person and it wouldn’t matter one iota in terms of solving the debt crisis.

Enact Buffet-style tax reforms, and stop making the fallacious argument that it’s not right to tax the rich when the poor barely pay anything.

No one who knows anything uses that argument – it’s more the Buffet-rule would tamp down investment that is crucial for the US economy.

You want reasonably regulation? Get the fucking money out of Washington.

See above.

Except that donations haven’t shown to corrupt. Unless you have the data that Karma was unable to produce to prove his point?

I’ve already referred to a well documented case where a large political donation resulted in a special interest group being exempted from the law which was applied to everyone else. Here’s a link in case you didn’t believe me. Different country I know, but human nature is the same the world over. People with piles of money can and do manipulate the political and legal process for their own benefit.

Provide candidates the airwaves they need to have their voices heard free of charge, as it was meant to be, instead of forcing a profit from the political process.

I consider a reasonable regulation one that has to be possible. While I mostly agree with this (and people in Washington have tried to push for this), this will never happen.

Why not? It happens over here. OK, I know we’re all a bunch of socialist pinkos in Europe, but if we can do it, there is no reason for you not to do it. It’s simply a matter of having the will to make it happen.

I’ve already referred to a well documented case where a large political donation resulted in a special interest group being exempted from the law which was applied to everyone else. Here’s a link in case you didn’t believe me. Different country I know, but human nature is the same the world over. People with piles of money can and do manipulate the political and legal process for their own benefit.

And there are instances of corrupt politicans in the US. There have been a handful of instances of quid pro quo corruption. Saying that because a couple of people were corrupt that therefore all political contributions is a leap that you really can’t make.

Why not? It happens over here. OK, I know we’re all a bunch of socialist pinkos in Europe, but if we can do it, there is no reason for you not to do it. It’s simply a matter of having the will to make it happen.

American culture and European culture are apples and oranges. Comparing our politics is moot. Free airspace will not happen in the US, especially with the internet becoming far more important and far cheaper than advertising via broadcast.

First you said that donations haven’t been shown to corrupt. Then you say that there are instances of corrupt politicians in the US. You can’t have it both ways.

As I said before, I don’t have any problems about political donations. Parties need to be financed or they cease to exist. If you broadly support a political party’s manifesto and wish to make a contribution to their war chest, that’s just fine by me. But donations should be without strings attached. There is a big difference between giving cash to support a manifesto and giving cash to influence the writing of the manifesto. Only the seriously wealthy are able to do that and the practice should be eradicated totally and completely, no exceptions, and by any means necessary. You admit that there have been a handful of instances of quid pro quo corruption. That’s just what we know about. What about all the undetected crime that the press didn’t find out about?

It’s a pity about America not being able to provide free airtime to ensure that all candidates get the chance to make their policies known to the public. I don’t really buy your line about the internet being more important. TV is like wallpaper in many households (same over here) and there are 50 million Joe Soaps who can’t be bothered to turn it off if they are not particularly interested in the programme being broadcast. So they suck up all the bull and take it as gospel. If only a couple of candidates have the funds to broadcast, it gives them a massive and unfair advantage.

First you said that donations haven’t been shown to corrupt. Then you say that there are instances of corrupt politicians in the US. You can’t have it both ways.

Seatbelts don’t actually save lives. Someone has died in a crash because they were trapped in a car due to their seatbelt. Ridiculous yes? Yes, it is, yet that’s basically the same point you’re trying to argue. The very rare, outlying instance you are using to prove your point. If money corrupts, far more would be convicted of corruption than there actually are.

But donations should be without strings attached. There is a big difference between giving cash to support a manifesto and giving cash to influence the writing of the manifesto. Only the seriously wealthy are able to do that and the practice should be eradicated totally and completely, no exceptions, and by any means necessary. You admit that there have been a handful of instances of quid pro quo corruption. That’s just what we know about. What about all the undetected crime that the press didn’t find out about?

Just because the crime is undetected doesn’t mean it exists. I understand the counter is, just because we haven’t detected it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. But here, it’s innocent until proven guilty. In order to claim corruption, you have to show corruption.

I don’t really buy your line about the internet being more important.

It isn’t yet, but it will be, hence why I said becoming. The demographics of people who use the internet for political news is used primarily by younger people. Those who rely solely on television or print media are overwhelmingly older.

If money corrupts, far more would be convicted of corruption than there actually are.

I’m not sure whether you have a very rosy view of human nature or whether I’ve become an old cynic, but I disagree with you about that.

But here, it’s innocent until proven guilty. In order to claim corruption, you have to show corruption.

I’m not accusing anyone of corruption, at least not directly. How could you think that of me? But surely you wouldn’t deny the people the opportunity to close any possible loopholes, just in case (heaven forbid) one day a politician might be tempted to accept that plain brown envelope stuffed with cash or favours.

I’m not sure whether you have a very rosy view of human nature or whether I’ve become an old cynic, but I disagree with you about that.

Sure they can corrupt, just as I can win the lottery or be struck by lightning. But, if they had a noticeable effect, there would be cases on an annual basis, not once in a blue moon.

I’m not accusing anyone of corruption, at least not directly. How could you think that of me? But surely you wouldn’t deny the people the opportunity to close any possible loopholes, just in case (heaven forbid) one day a politician might be tempted to accept that plain brown envelope stuffed with cash or favours.

Actually I think that all contribution limits should be done away with.

massively agree with the start-out post… huge donations are nothing more than poorly disguised corruption especially in America where you only have the choice between two parties… even if politicians didn’t do “favors” for huge donations, and they DO, the pressure alone and the influence donators gain through goodwill and expectations can not be justified by anybody who regards people as equals…

What could possibly go wrong?

I still think it should be called “freedom of action”, and not “freedom of speech”, if you’re referring to so-called donating to political parties. Aside from “speech” being a very messed up way of describing actions that might or might not make a political statement, there is no way your supposed freedom of speech is restricted when you can pump less money towards your favourite political parties.

@ softest

Many wealthy donors have put their money into issue advocacy groups that are not required to disclose their identities to the Federal Election Commission, leaving unknown the true scale of outside money flowing into the 2012 campaigns.

This, for me, is by far the most worrying thing in the article. If everything is out in the open, even if the “wrong” candidate wins, the public and especially the press will have the chance to compare donations with subsequent legislation and figure out just who is pulling the strings. Allowing millions to be donated secretly will lead to disaster.

What happened to freedom of information?

Originally posted by issendorf:

I’m goddamned sick of seeing and hearing people say “HEY! If you don’t think that every single thing about the system in the US is perfect, then GTFO!”
It’s ridiculous and immature.

And I’m sick of my president complaining about venture capitalists and profits.

being criticised does not excuse you to come up with nonsensical arguments.

person A does something deplorable. person B criticizes person A. person A makes a nonsensical argument against person B and calls it even.

that’s the typical logic of the pro-capitalist. blanket styles of arguing that avert all content and can just be blindly spammed into any argument. …this world is doomed.

Originally posted by softest_voice:

What could possibly go wrong?

Because no one has donated large amounts of cash to the President’s Super PAC. Oh wait, they have, nevermind.

I still think it should be called “freedom of action”, and not “freedom of speech”,

Except speech and action are nowhere near the same. Speech go along the lines of freedom for political expression. The Supreme Court has already said that political contributions are a form of speech. The reason they can regulate contributions is because the donation of $1 and $1 million offer the same form of expression, hence a cap (in addition to other rationals) on contribution limits. When you call speech an action, then the justification to limit it becomes much easier as countless actions are already banned, from driving under the influence of alcohol to shooting someone.

being criticised does not excuse you to come up with nonsensical arguments.

I wasn’t making an argument; I thought we were just saying things we were sick of.

person A does something deplorable. person B criticizes person A. person A makes a nonsensical argument against person B and calls it even.

that’s the typical logic of the pro-capitalist. blanket styles of arguing that avert all content and can just be blindly spammed into any argument. …this world is doomed.

I’d love to see this ‘non-sensical’ argument I’ve made rather than you just talking out of your rump.

Originally posted by issendorf:

The reason they can regulate contributions is because the donation of $1 and $1 million offer the same form of expression, hence a cap (in addition to other rationals) on contribution limits.

thank you

Originally posted by issendorf:
The Supreme Court has already said that political contributions are a form of speech.

Until how much money is the cap being put on, currently?

The Supreme Court has already said that political contributions are a form of speech.

I agree they can say whatever the hell they want. Sacrificing goats may be a form of freedom of speech (practicing your religion and telling people that it is the right thing to do) for all I care. I’m saying I personally disagree. I dislike this whole “ha! The constitution/supreme court disagrees with you, so you’re wrong” attitude from several here.

When you call speech an action, then the justification to limit it becomes much easier as countless actions are already banned, from driving under the influence of alcohol to shooting someone.

Similarly, when you call an action speech, you’re making up excuses to have it become unlimited. I’ve stated it before, you can and are able to politically express yourself without dumping a large load of money in that particular political party. Your freedom to express yourself is not limited by a limit on the amount of money you can donate to them (even if that limit is zero). Instead, the only argument I could agree on is that those political parties might need money from somewhere.

As a sidenote, I don’t know what you think of anonymous contributions, but those have even less to do with freedom of speech as nobody can see their actions.

Originally posted by issendorf:

being criticised does not excuse you to come up with nonsensical arguments.

I wasn’t making an argument; I thought we were just saying things we were sick of.

person A does something deplorable. person B criticizes person A. person A makes a nonsensical argument against person B and calls it even.

that’s the typical logic of the pro-capitalist. blanket styles of arguing that avert all content and can just be blindly spammed into any argument. …this world is doomed.

I’d love to see this ‘non-sensical’ argument I’ve made rather than you just talking out of your rump.

you use “like it or leave” as a justification for whatever government is doing. this is clearly a non-argument that can be blindly used to defend any status quo. and you justified using this “argument” by calling it reactionary to criticism, thereby implying that any argument has equal merit to any other, regardless of their validity.

I agree they can say whatever the hell they want. Sacrificing goats may be a form of freedom of speech (practicing your religion and telling people that it is the right thing to do) for all I care. I’m saying I personally disagree.

Fair enough.

Similarly, when you call an action speech, you’re making up excuses to have it become unlimited. I’ve stated it before, you can and are able to politically express yourself without dumping a large load of money in that particular political party. Your freedom to express yourself is not limited by a limit on the amount of money you can donate to them (even if that limit is zero).

You’re right, there are other methods for political expression. But, I think you would submit, that contributing money to a candidate or a party, money they have to have in order to run a campaign, is one form. I recognize it’s a slippery slope argument, but when you start limiting some political expressions, it opens the door for the possibility of others in the future.

you use “like it or leave” as a justification for whatever government is doing. this is clearly a non-argument that can be blindly used to defend any status quo. and you justified using this “argument” by calling it reactionary to criticism, thereby implying that any argument has equal merit to any other, regardless of their validity.

You’re right! I didn’t pose an argument detailing how there is no evidence about campaign contributions corrupting. Instead, all I said was, this is our campaign contribution system, like it or leave it.

I seriously question if you even read what I write. It should be clear that I hate our current campaign finance regulation system, so why the hell would I say like it or leave it?

But, I think you would submit, that contributing money to a candidate or a party, money they have to have in order to run a campaign, is one form.

I’m not entirely convinced, but I can see it’s a grey area. The decision where to put it is likely more influenced by to what degree they’d wish to restrict it than the actual definitions.

I recognize it’s a slippery slope argument, but when you start limiting some political expressions, it opens the door for the possibility of others in the future.

Well, yes, it’s a slippery slope, and I’m not sure if I have much more to add. Naturally, the government isn’t perfect, so it may try to exploit this limit by implementing other limits, and I don’t have a magical eye for all possible consequences. I would just say it’d be rational to separate government actions from each other.

Originally posted by issendorf:

Originally posted by softest_voice:

What could possibly go wrong?

Because no one has donated large amounts of cash to the President’s Super PAC. Oh wait, they have, nevermind.

Ooooops, does not such huge donations (for both “parties”) give indication of just how wrong this whole “change-up” of how INFLUENCIAL MONEY given to political causes (esp. specifically for getting govt. officials…ON ALL LEVELS) has done NOTHING MORE THAN DISENFRANCHISE the “little ppl”—the We The People—in favor of the Plutocracy of: We The Rightful Rulers of Society Because We Obviously Should Be Because We Have Lots of Money To Prove This Axiom.

OR, as MICHAEL G. NICHOLS said in a recent Op-Ed in our local newspaper:
‘We the people,’ not ‘we the billionaires’

Our democracy depends on folks exercising their right to vote. The more voters, the more representative our elected leaders will be. This is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they said “we the people.” They did not start the Constitution with “we the billionaires.”

This concept of democracy is threatened by the flood of anonymous money being dumped into the election process. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity, the American Legislative Exchange Council and many more seem to have a stranglehold on the process and our elected leaders.

None of these organizations seems to think full disclosure is in order, because they feel the donors will be “harassed.” It is a shame these secretive billionaires do not have the courage of their convictions to stand up and be counted. In the end, this action will destroy our democracy, and we will have a plutocracy instead.

These groups {PAC’s, etc.} are concerned only with the interests of those who fund them, and they work and spend to achieve their goals. If the money spent to keep their {the wealthy "funders"} taxes low and keep many from voting instead worked to create an economic environment that actually benefits the general population, would their profits and ours all go up?

MICHAEL G. NICHOLS

Wichita

This is the rub of it all: I N E Q U A L I T Y

Or, inequality based upon monetary “power”.
Which does nothing more than “punish” those w/ far less money than those who would seek to not only keep things this way, but to even more greatly increase it…..likely so that, in the future, less campaign funds will need be spent,,,,giving just that more “bottom-line-profit” to the “big guys” at the expense of the “little guys”.

An interesting bit of truth that has been overlooked is: “Money” is totally free to be used by private sectors to make their case for their political desires….as opposed to being used by the campaigns (via the donations we’re talking about).

“Freedom of Speech” allows private concerns to manifest their own campaigns via (usually) media expression…..WITH NO CAPITAL LIMITS WHATSOEVER. Can the “little guy” do this? Can “unions” even get into the ball park (of monetary numbers) in order to play the game w/ they “rich dudes”?

Donates money to Sarah Palin …. Lol, no.

Originally posted by issendorf:

I still think it should be called “freedom of action”, and not “freedom of speech”,

Except speech and action are nowhere near the same.

NOWEHERE THE SAME?How about in the same ball park? How about—since they pretty much, though the means may be different, have the same (expected?) ends—they aren’t even “competitive” enough to even be in different dugouts?

Speech go along the lines of freedom for political expression.

Damn…I’m glad we cleared THAT up.

The Supreme Court has already said that political contributions are a form of speech.

YUP. And, where the SC had its head up its ass is that it failed to understand the “INEQUALITY ASPECT” I mention in the above post.

The reason they can regulate contributions is because the donation of $1 and $1 million offer the same form of expression, hence a cap (in addition to other rationals) on contribution limits.

Oh, fucking BULLSHIT. How can YOU state (w/ a straight face) that such disparity of donations are the same? Yes, in regards to “form of expression”. BUT NO, in regards to the power wielded by that disparity…duh.

When you call speech an action, then the justification to limit it becomes much easier as countless actions are already banned, from driving under the influence of alcohol to shooting someone.

AND, countless forms of speech are “banned” (howzabout REGULATED, also….please drop the emotional appeals). There is ample “justification” for limitations of both speech & action.

Since I’ve not been able to follow//contribute to this thread for some time now, I’ve fallen behind in it. SO, there will be several posts from me in order to address the many salient points brought up.

Since this post is short, I’m going to toss in some (related, but possibly seen as only tenuous) info that I feel is highly germane to this issue.
An important read
It talks on Private & Public (govt.) financing of campaigns (elections). YES, there are countries where govt. financing happens. BUT, it is usually unbiased and they aren’t as politically polarized as American is.

It also offers this: Supporters of private financing systems believe that, in addition to avoiding government limitations on speech, private financing fosters civic involvement, ensures that a diversity of views are heard, and prevents government from tilting the scales to favor those in power or with political influence.
{except that this “diversity of views” can’t be heard because money not only “talks”….it SCREAMS. Thereby BIG MONEY essentially drowning out the voice of the “little guys”….duh}

These kind of donations can come from private individuals, as well as groups such as trade unions and for-profit corporations.
{Again, the same thing as w/ “little-guy” voices. Unions—by comparison to huge corporation conglomerates—are essentially “little guys”, too. Can anyone dispute that huge corp.-conglom’s who deal in fast-food-beef products are going to “support” candidates that believe beef-industry regulations are to “strict”….thereby keeping beef prices higher?}

However, critics of this system claim that it leads to votes being “bought” and to large gaps between different parties in the money they have to campaign with.
{Well, DUH. This is exactly what I’ve been “arguing” w/ issendorf about. Yet, he is (has been?…his position appears to be “softening” now) unable to accept this as an ugly fact of life in American politics.

An “update” on campaign finance caps

It appears Issendorf wants to split semantic-hairs on what an “argument” is. Yet, earlier in this thread, he vehemently “argued” that wealthy corporations wielded little more (NONE?) power than did the Unions mentioned in the link. BULLSHIT….pure bullshit. Only someone w/ their head buried deeply in their ass would see the machinations of our monetary-political-social events in that way.

Originally posted by julesofwar:

Donates money to Sarah Palin …. Lol, no.

I will…gladly & deeply,,,,
if it will cause her to shut the fuck up and go away…..far, FAR away.
She’s had her 15 min. of fame…
She was hugely instrumental in getting Obama elected…
She a “hottie”….nothing more,,,,,a BIMBO who retarded major progress women have made in the world of politics, etc.